|
Waikato Times
November 12, 1996
Judiciary takes a dim view
by Kris McGehen
In
August last year Nick Wills was branded a rapist. Three months later he was
cleared of all charges when his accuser admitted lying to police. The Times
examines how police and courts handle false complaints.
When Hamilton man Nick Wills was falsely accused of rape last year many
wondered how his accuser could have hoodwinked police.
The woman, who remains anonymous because of a High Court name suppression
order, duped police so well that even senior staff had initial difficulty
finding fault with her story.
That is until subtle discrepancies began to emerge in her statements, and
ended with a confession to police that she had made a false rape complaint.
Mr Wills and his family also launched their own investigation into her
claims.
It's a trap all police hope never to fall into.
But the head of Hamilton CIB, Detective Chief Inspector Rex Miller, says that
sometimes his staff fall - and fall hard.
He doesn't deny police could have made a more "vigorous" attempt in
investigating the Nick Wills case. But also, he is adamant the alleged
complainant was so convincing no one would have doubted her.
Mr Miller is defensive about his detectives. The officer handling the case,
Detective Chris Scahill, is well regarded by his colleagues, he says. Mr
Scahill refuses to comment.
A Police Complaints Authority report on the case said there was a
"neglect of duty" by police in their investigations. Mr Miller has
no argument with that.
"We're not denying we could have investigated more strenuously. The job
wasn't done maybe as well as it could have been."
But as far as he is concerned, the Nick Wills case is "over and done
with".
He points out police are often maligned for questioning complainants,
especially rape ones, too severely.
Accusations of browbeating and "victimising the victims" are always
uppermost in police minds.
"We're very careful not to cross that line."
Often a false rape complaint is alleged when a woman has had sex with
someone, often not her husband or boyfriend, then panics when she thinks she
might be found out, Mr Miller says. It's usually an afterthought by the
woman, who thinks an alleged rape will cool the heels of the offended partner
if he finds out.
Those sorts of cases have Mr Miller and his detectives seething.
"Ultimately, it's just a total waste of our time and resources. To call
it annoying is putting it mildly.
"Quite often we're damned if we do (question) and damned if we
don't."
Mr Miller says most detectives will get a sixth sense that something's not
quite right with a crime complaint.
Experience helps of course, but intuition plays a big part.
The reasons why people lie to the police are as varied as the people making
them.
While some just want to make a nuisance of themselves, others have more
serious problems.
Pathological liars feature prominently in false complaint cases --
"sometimes they tell so many lies they believe them all
themselves," he says.
Often psychiatric problems are diagnosed as the result of a false complaint
-- court directives usually recommend treatment.
Sometimes stories are just so far-fetched, alarm bells start ringing almost
immediately.
Mr Miller says convictions against those who make false complaints are
usually successful.
More often than not they plead guilty.
For the year ending June 30, Hamilton
police charged 30 people with making a false statement. Te Awamutu police
charged 17.
By far the most common false complaints are people claiming their cars has
been stolen.
Mr Miller says his staff have to deal regularly with a "fair
number" of these cases, which are usually associated with insurance
rip-offs.
Then there are those who exaggerate their claims when they've been burgled or
had their cars broken into.
"Generally, people who make false complaints are wasting our time.
They're a damned nuisance.
"They also tie up crucial police resources which could be used for a
genuine investigation." -------------------------- THE JUDICIARY does
not take kindly to people who lie to police.
Sentences range from conviction and discharge and community service to a fine
of up to $1000 or a prison term up to three months.
It's considered by the courts as a serious offence that hampers police
investigations.
Nick Wills' accuser was eventually charged with making a false complaint when
police found inconsistencies in her story and an alibi was finally
established for him.
She admitted lying to police only when confronted with conflicting
information she could not deny.
Mr Wills says he knew the woman "only vaguely". They lived on the
same floor of the Bryant Hall student hostel at Waikato University
and shared some lectures.
But that was as far as it went. "She certainly wasn't a good friend of
mine or anything," he says.
Mr Wills was surprised and distressed when he was told of the woman's
allegations.
"It just came right out of the blue. It was horrendous."
In sentencing the woman in December last year, Hamilton District Court Judge
Geoffrey Rea was critical of her attitude and her insistence on prolonging
the police investigation. He said she was a compelling and convincing witness
who continued a charade for over two months.
Judge Rea said the woman showed a tendency for "exaggeration and
falsehood" in other discussions she had had with friends.
"I find it difficult to understand how somebody of your intelligence and
background could fail to understand the catastrophic effect that a false
charge such as this must have had on the victim of it (Nick Wills)."
Judge Rea said he accepted something happened to the woman on the night of
the alleged attack. But because of the case's background, if any offence had
been committed it would be difficult to bring charges against others.
The woman had perpetuated the complaint and even signed a deposition
statement knowing full well she could be prosecuted for knowingly signing a
dishonest document.
During the investigation Mr Wills and his family had provided police with
information, including an alibi, that prompted them to re-interview the
woman.
Judge Rea said he was "truly troubled" by the woman's continual
adamant stance that she had been raped by Mr Wills. That may have continued
if the Wills family and police "had not been able to ascertain the real
position".
"To say that you placed Mr Wills' future in jeopardy is a gross
understatement."
The woman's lawyer asked for a discharge without conviction. But Judge Rea
said the matter was too serious to justify that.
He sentenced her to 150 hours' community service and ordered her to pay Nick
Wills $5000 reparation for emotional harm caused.
He refused to suppress her name, saying that the public was entitled to know
of her actions. But that decision was overturned a short time later by a High
Court order.
Her name suppression is seen by some as unfair. After all, Nick Wills' name
is public knowledge, as is Chris Scahill's, the policeman who led the flawed
inquiry.
Even Judge Rea said there was an argument that people who made false
allegations such as this should be known to the public.
Her lawyer submitted that knowledge of her name would affect future job
prospects or study and she should be protected from "future
predators".
But it was not a good enough case for suppression, Judge Rea said.
Fearing she would be exposed, the woman sought the order from the High Court
at Wellington
to overturn the decision after she was alerted to a 60 Minutes television
programme on the case that would have identified her. Her name remains
suppressed indefinitely.
--------------------
CAPTION:
FALSELY ACCUSED: Nick Wills was falsely accused of rape - and his accuser
duped even senior police officers.
REX MILLER: sometimes police fall.
|
